On Dec 9, 2003, at 4:12 PM, John Klos wrote:
>>> Of course it's rhetorical.  What's a "contemporary VAX"?  :-)
>>
>> That made me think...
>> I would be interesting to see the speed of a full compile under 
>> SIMH/vax
>> running on a top-of-the-line (speedwise  2.4Ghz?) Intel box
>> Maybe that can be used to solve the cross-compile problems that have
>> been discussed recently?
>
> SIMH was slower on a 1.466 GHz AMD than my real VAX 4000/60; a 3 GHz 
> AMD,
> for instance, would still be much slower than a 4000/90. I thought 
> about
> this, too, and wondered about the idea of using an idle x86 to do some 
> VAX
> work, but the real hardware is still faster.

   Well...truth be known, these VAXen just *aren't* particularly slow.  
There seems to be a universal desire to make people think that just 
because it's a VAX, it's huge or old or slow.  There are VAXen that are 
huge, there are VAXen that are old, and there are VAXen that are slow.  
But those aren't the only VAXen.

   I'd say let's run with the real hardware if we can get it.  It also 
tends to be a lot more reliable than some random Taiwanese PC.

         -Dave

--
Dave McGuire                      "My tummy hurts now, but my soul
St. Petersburg, FL                 feels a little better."     -Ed